Does the Alternative Business Structure model spur innovation?

The answer to which would seem to be: Yes.

According to this article by Neil Rose on the Legal Futures blog, quoting a recently published report by David Freeman Engstrom, Lucy Ricca, Graham Ambrose and Maddie Walsh, the introduction of ABSs in Arizona and Utah is “spurring innovation” in those jurisdictions.

To quote the article, the Report identified :

…five main innovation types;

  1. 1. Traditional law firms making changes to their capital or business structure or service model (89% of the 57 entities authorised in the two states as of 30 June 2022 have taken on non-lawyer ownership, investment or partnership of some kind);
  2. 2. ‘Law companies’ like LegalZoom practising law, which they cannot elsewhere in the US;
  3. 3. ‘Non-law companies’ as new entrants adding legal services to their existing offerings;
  4. 4. ‘Intermediary platforms’ that connect lawyers and consumers and often provide practice support systems to lawyers such as case management and billing; and
  5. 5. Entities using non-lawyers and technology to practise law.

while importantly:

…in both Utah and Arizona, “lawyers remain central to the development and delivery of services”, even when non-lawyers and software were being used.

With finding such as these, you can guarantee that the road to reform is pathed.

We may go kicking and screaming, but it will happen.

Read the Report. It may not look like much, but it is an important turning point for those who advocate for – so-called – #NewLaw. And Kudos to Neil Rose for his article.

As always, views are my own!


What’s the adoption rate of #LegalTech in Japan?

If you are sitting around wondering what the state of adoption of legal tech is in the Japanese private practice market, then wonder no longer. The graph above is taken from epiq‘s recently published White Paper: ‘The State of Legal Departments in Japan – Part One: Legal Expenses‘.

As I think you’ll agree, use of technology in the Japanese private practice legal market still has long way to go!

But I do wonder if this might also be a reflection of the fact that there is no meaningful legal tech providers in that market; or if it is really down to the users themselves?